From HuffPost pollster, less smoothing (July-Oct 2015
here)
I looked at the GOP chart over a smaller time interval than the D chart to tease out the chaotic lines. The link for apples-to-apples dates on the D side (shorter interval) is
here, but that removes Bernie's sharp rise.
Looks kinda static to me.
John Judis has one of the best explainers of the Trump phenomenon I've seen:
In 1976, Donald Warren—a sociologist from Oakland University in Michigan who would die two decades later without ever attaining the rank of full professor—published a book called The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation. Few people have read or heard of it—I learned of it about 30 years ago from the late, very eccentric paleoconservative Samuel Francis—but it is, in my opinion, one of the three or four books that best explain American politics over the past half-century...
In explaining Trump’s ascent, most political analysts have ignored the role of this distinct ideology. Instead, they have tended to attribute his success to his personal style. In August, for instance, The New York Times concluded that Trump’s coalition was “constructed around personality, not substance.” Polling expert Nate Silver has insisted that Trump’s appeal, in contrast to that of Bernie Sanders, is not related to the policies he espouses. “Trump,” he writes, “is largely campaigning on the force of his personality.”
This explanation isn’t entirely wrong: Trump’s personality—his outspokenness, his disdain for political-correctness, his showmanship, his reputation as a billionaire deal-maker—has certainly contributed to his political success. Indeed, a forceful personality—a veritable man on a white horse—is what Donald Warren found [Middle American Radicals] MARS to be looking for.
But it would be a mistake to assume that Trump’s supporters are drawn to him simply because of his personality or because, like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, he is a political outsider. What has truly sustained Trump thus far is that he does, in fact, articulate a coherent set of ideological positions, even if those positions are not exactly conservative or liberal. The key to figuring out the Trump phenomenon—why it arose now and where it might be headed next—lies in understanding this worldview...
But can he succeed where Wallace, Perot, and Buchanan fell short? Can a MARS candidate actually win the White House? One hesitates at this point to offer any predictions, but my suspicion is that Trump will fail like the others.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Pew:
Among possible Democratic primary voters, there is broad support for a candidate who will offer policies and programs similar to the Obama administration (61% more likely, 12% less likely) and compromise with Republicans (60% more likely, 14% less likely).
Smaller percentages of possible Democratic primary voters would be more inclined to support a candidate who wants to cut the size of large banks and financial institutions (48% more likely, 16% less likely) and expand U.S. trade agreements with other nations (45%, 19%). And while 41% of possible Democratic voters say they would be more likely to support a candidate who backs the Iran nuclear agreement, 27% would be less likely to favor a candidate who takes this position.
and
GOP voters are ideologically divided in their opinions about several of these candidate positions, but the largest gap by far is over ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Among conservative Republican voters, 69% say they would be more likely to support a candidate who wants to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, compared with just 9% who would be less likely to support a candidate who takes this position. However, just 28% of moderate and liberal Republicans view this stance positively. A large majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (69%) say either they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who wants to end funding for Planned Parenthood (38%) or that it would not be a major factor in their vote (31%).
While there is broad opposition among Republicans to the Iran nuclear deal, more conservative Republican voters (74%) than moderates and liberals (56%) say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to end the agreement. Republicans also are divided in views of a presidential candidate who will compromise with Democrats. Roughly half of moderate and liberal Republican voters (54%) would be more likely to support a candidate who will compromise with Democrats, compared with just 36% of conservative Republicans.
Perry Bacon, Jr:
Boehner is in some ways the first and only victim of the failure of the Republican Party to achieve its policy goals in the Obama era. Party activists and some House members have chosen to pin the blame primarily on Boehner for the GOP's inability to stop Obama, who over the last year has cemented a legacy of pushing America left on a number of issues.
This is no doubt unfair to Boehner. Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican Supreme Court appointee, twice opted against striking down Obamacare. Another Republican justice, Anthony Kennedy, cast the deciding vote making gay marriage a constitutional right. American voters reelected Obama, a liberal president who is very unlikely to defund Planned Parenthood and reached a nuclear agreement with Iran.
But conservatives can't fire Kennedy, Obama or Roberts. So they chucked aside Boehner instead.
Jonathan Chait:
To understand the pressures that brought about Boehner’s demise as an ideological split badly misconstrues the situation. The small band of right-wing noisemakers in the House who made Boehner’s existence a living hell could not identify any important substantive disagreements with the object of their wrath. (The one exception to this is Boehner’s brief, aborted 2011 attempt to craft a long-term debt deal with the Obama administration, which he abandoned under pressure from Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor.) The source of the disagreement was tactical, not philosophical. Boehner’s tormentors refused to accept the limits of his political power.
Charlie Cook:
One thing that jumped out of their latest survey spells bad news for Republicans—and it’s only bound to get worse. It boils down to the two Americas we have now—how the differences in outlook are generational and how Republicans should worry about aligning themselves in ways that, over time, will increasingly put them at a disadvantage. Nostalgia is great in its place. But in politics, getting caught up in the past is perilous.
Look at the responses of 828 registered voters when they were asked, “in thinking about the next president,” which of two statements came closer to their point of view. The first choice: “It is time to have a president who will focus on progress and help move America forward.” Or: “This is a time to have a president who will focus on protecting what has made America great.” I must confess that the wording bothers me a bit, because people can define “progress” and “move America forward” in different ways. Not surprisingly, 60 percent of the respondents preferred to “focus on progress and help move America forward”; just 38 percent chose “protecting what has made America great.”
But what’s intriguing about the responses is this: While Democrats chose “progress” over “protecting” by a striking margin of 84 percent to 14 percent, Republicans picked “protecting” by 63 percent to 30 percent.
Speaking of polls, the
Pew poll is fascinating because it asks about D and R preferences, but open ended; they asked first choice but didn't name names. As a result, "don't know" was fairly high (21%, a lot higher than most other polls). Here's what they came up with:
Note the difference in religious preference for candidate (which may well reflect race).
And for the GOP:
Note Trump doing best with high school and <$40,000. But note also how well he does with self-described 'mod-lib'. See the Judis link for explanation.